Re: Migrating from SpamAssassin to Bogofilter

On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 11:24 +0100, RW wrote:
> As was pointed-out to you, this is a well-documented, deliberate design
> decision, not poor error control. The admin chooses whether, on failure,
> the mail backs-up in the MTA or passes through without spam
> classification.

I'm not going to argue with you on that. It's a poor design, an
anachronistic user interface, and breaks standard POSIX behaviour.

> Furthermore you eventually discovered yourself that Evolution was
> invoking spamc with error codes turned-on.

The issue wasn't with just the return codes. It was also with poor error
control on bad UNIX sockets.

> No, three newly-registered people, who hadn't read the man page either,
> agreed with you. It wasn't in the least bit controversial otherwise.

Again, I think you're taking things out of context and may not fully
understand the issue.

> > In any case, I offered a patch.
> > 
> >   <http://rod.gs/x1o>
> 
> And all that was actually committed was a minor modification to an error
> message.

If you had followed the issue carefully, you'd see that that was at
least part of the problem. I don't know why it's an issue for you, as
Bogofilter and SpamAssassin are separate projects.

Anyways, I'm not going to argue with you about it. I came to the
Bogofilter project to find a viable alternative, and I hope that the
culture responsible for it to be more open minded.

-- 
Kip Warner -- Software Engineer
OpenPGP encrypted/signed mail preferred
http://www.thevertigo.com

_______________________________________________
Bogofilter mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.bogofilter.org/mailman/listinfo/bogofilter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAlGyJZgACgkQLXnfK7bii23kJACgr/Jccn+P0VpdSH96Hs9x4CaK
Nm0AoJQlRxM8fld6wN0SxzND+37XqZre
=RH5Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----